Quincy Adams Wagstaff, MP
Here’s the argument broken down as a logic problem:
A happens, and B happens, so A causes B.
B happens, and C is a kind of B, so if B happens, C happens.
A causes B, and C is a type of B, so if A happens, C happens.
C is terrible, so we must do Q.
Q is new, so Q is good, because new is good.
If you don’t believe we must do Q, it is because you love C.
Only horrible people love C, so if you love C then you are the same as those horrible people.
And here it is as it played out today in the House of Commons:
(Canadian) Public Safety Minister Vic Toews, rebutting criticism of C-51 bill:
“As technology evolves, many criminal activities, such as the distribution of child pornography, become much easier,” he told the House. “We are proposing to bring measures to bring our laws into the 21st century and to provide police with the lawful tools that they need.
“He can either stand with us or with the child pornographers.”
#1: Fallacy: Confusing Cause and Effect
“As technology evolves, many criminal activities…become much easier.”
Although these two things may occur at the same time, it does not mean that A causes B.
#2: Fallacy: Assuming that if a General effect happens, a Specific sub-set of the General effect will happen.
“…many criminal activities, such as the distribution of child pornography, become easier.”
Although X is a subset of Y, if Y happens, it does not mean that X subset will happen.
#3 Fallacy: Appeal to Fear
Creating fear in people (easier child porn distribution) does not constitute evidence for a claim (that the proposed bill is good).
#4 Fallacy: Appeal to Novelty
“We are proposing to bring measures to bring our laws into the 21st century…”
What we are doing is new, and therefore better.
#5 Fallacy: False Dilemma
“He can either stand with us or with the child pornographers.”
Either you are against this bill, or you are for it. You are not for it, therefore you must be against it.
#6 Fallacy: Guilt by Association
“He can either stand with us or with the child pornographers.”
Horrible people hold opinion B. You hold opinion B. Therefore you are a just like those horrible people.
Six fallacies in three sentences. The government does itself no favours in attempting to pass legislation by relying on such rhetorical errors (or tricks if you like). It is unnecessary to do so in order to pass the bill (the government holds the majority). It is also unseemly to use guilt by association, a child-like rhetorical tactic, in the House of Commons.
How might one respond to such lunacy?
“Child pornography is a crime punishable by up to 10 years in prison, so anyone who opposes your proposal is a criminal? Has the government just criminalized dissent? Is the government threatening citizens with a decade in prison if they don’t support your proposal?”
